RE : Cc/pp S&V conformance section

Hi Steph

Thank you for the clarification.  It seems that the WG has spent much time 
discussing this area, resulting in the current text.  The current text is 
fine with me.  However, I did have a few in line comments.


> > 1.  The 2 categories are not written in the same style - they
> > should both
> > start the same (e.g., A consumer is a... or The behavior
> > of....).
> > 2.  As written, it is possible for a non-validating
> > consumer to reject all
> > non-conformant CC/PP documents, since the behaviour is not
> > specified - thus
> > it would be a validating consumer.
> > (behaviour is not the US spelling - behavior)
>Well, this is true : a ccpp consumer rejecting all non-conformant
>profiles may decide to be in the non-validating section. Being a
>validating consumer means that you are doing more work than the snd
>category. So if you can apply for the 1st category, then you may decide
>that you would prefer to stay in the lower category but i've hard time
>understanding the rationale behind such a decision.
>The 2 categories are not mutually exclusive. Being a validating consumer
>means that the product would have more constraints as we have to
>evaluate the behaviour for non-conformant profile.

Sounds reasonable.

> > 3. Do you really need #2, since a validating consumer rejects
> > non-conformant documents, then anything else is
> > non-validating.
>This is a good question. We already discussed it many times in the
>group. We specifically want to say that it is not required to be
>validating to claim that you are conformant to the spec. Thus we have to
>distinguish between the 2 cases no ?

You could have case #1 and then case #2 being everything else.

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 08:03:58 UTC